User talk:RickS

So, saying one place is far less lovely than another is deemed appropriate and useful in a travel guide? That hardly makes any sense to be frank. Strict neutrality is one thing, but making a statement amenable to both sides should be permitted, especially if it is not false. I reverted it to language that would please both sides.RickS 16:49, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Unfortunately, your version is too dry. It doesn't tell us anything useful about the cities. Wikitravel:Be fair says that if getting into North Korea is an Orwellian nightmare, we should say so. If Pittsburgh is a lovely city, we should say so. If Baltimore is an interesting city but not particularly "lovely", we should say so. It doesn't do anyone any good to mince words in an effort to please everyone under the sun. The traveller comes first. LtPowers 16:52, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

So, what if I in return said "Baltimore is more lovely than Pittsburgh"? All that would promote is a constant back and forth. Better to allow something that would offend neither, but inform both.RickS 16:56, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

I think I can say with confidence that denying Baltimore the "lovely" moniker won't create controversy. I know Baltimoreans, and they are proud of their grit—I've never heard the city (as a whole at least) described as lovely, sarcasm excluded. I definitely agree with LtPowers here; we aim to be fairnot neutral. --PeterTalk 20:02, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

Well under the rules of Wikitravel, as you're both proposing, it's open season on telling the "truth" about New Jersey, lol.RickS 21:30, 28 June 2009 (EDT)